Hamza Tzortzis – Reclaiming the Rainbow – Islam & LGBTQ+ Ideology
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
My dear brothers and sisters and friends.
I pray you are all well.
Alhamdulillah.
I am well.
And today, we're gonna be going through
reclaiming the rainbow.
And the purpose of this presentation is to
summarize an in-depth essay
that I have written that you could find
available
on the Sapiens Institute website.
Excuse me.
If you go to sapiens institute.org,
you would find the in-depth essay
that goes through 5 5 main
theological,
philosophical
assumptions. Actually, there are no theological assumptions, but
the philosophical assumptions, the epistemic assumptions, the metaphysical
assumptions
of the LGBTQ
plus
ideology,
and it presents
what these assumptions are, that they are
not universal, they're not absolute, and they can
be challenged.
And at the same time,
it provides a framework
for Muslims to be able to engage with
the LGBTQ
plus ideology,
and
it responds to these assumptions
through
the understanding of the Islamic world view or
the Islamic paradigm.
So
I do want you guys to read that
read that essay and explore the references
and continue your kind of intellectual journey on
this issue.
But I have summarized this essay in today's
presentation,
and we're gonna be unpacking
the 5
main
philosophical assumptions of the LGBTQ
plus
movement. And, hopefully, if if we have time,
some of you come can come come live,
and we could have a discussion on this
particular topic. Now
the first thing I wanna say is
it's become quite evident that
society
or some elements of society, some factions within
our society
have waged a full attack
against the family, against gender,
and against the moral and social hierarchies that
are necessary for human
flourishing.
And the main weapon that these factions have
used is actually the LGBTQ
plus ideology.
So the purpose of what I wanna deliver
to you today, the purpose of the presentation
is to unpack the 5 key assumptions
underlying this ideology,
explain
wherever where relevant that these that these assumptions
are actually incoherent,
showcase that the whole ideology itself is not
universal,
and it is immoral.
And I wanna explain
Islam's
perspective on the LGBTQ plus ideology
and expose
their false assumptions and to show how coherent
our worldview is.
And I'm gonna respond to certain key objections
such as, you know,
love is love,
and hopefully provide a method for engagement, intellectual
engagement, which I know is sometimes quite rare
with some advocates of the LGBTQ
plus ideology.
But nevertheless,
it's important that we stay calm and rational
and wise, and we use hikmah as Allah
Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says in the Quran
in chapter 16.
That we call to Allah to the Sabeel
of Allah to the way of Allah to
the path of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala with
hikmah.
And what is hikmah? My dear brothers and
sisters,
yes. References to hikmah in the Quran
are generally speaking the sunnah, the way of
the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. But what
is hikmah in the context of the Quran
and the sunnah? And generally speaking, the ulema,
the scholars have said
that hikmah is having an Allah pleasing goal
that you want to achieve within a particular
context,
and
you're taking
knowledge that you may have or you may
have access to or you
may
have connections with
scholars. You take that
and you apply in that particular context
to achieve the Allah pleasing goal. And that's
why we have to distinguish between
and context.
Like the pious predecessors, 1 of them at
least said that there are too many people
of and not enough people of Hikma.
And
Allah makes clear in Surah Yusuf in chapter
12 of the Quran that there is a
distinction between wise judgment and and knowledge
because Allah says, and we granted him wise
judgment and
and this is how we reward the doers
of good. So it's connected to virtue, which
is interesting because Umar ibn al Khattab
it was attribute to him that he said
that hikmah
you achieve hikmah through humility, that when you're
humble, Allah will give you hikmah
as if it's a gift or or Allah
would would would facilitate
hikma and and wise judgment for you. So
we have to do this with hikma. Now
hikma doesn't mean
being subjugated by the liberal paradigm, or Hikma
doesn't mean deviating from Islamic principles. Hikma doesn't
mean being a coward. You know? That's very
important because sometimes when we hear this from
some people, some elements in our community
have hikma ahi. Have hikma, my brother. Have
wisdom, my brother. Yeah. But wisdom what does
wisdom mean? It doesn't mean just shutting your
mouth or basically not saying the right thing.
Hikma is having an Allah pleasing goal,
right, that you wanna achieve in a particular
context, and you applying alm in that context
to achieve the goal. So there's a few
things here. You have to know what the
pleasing goal is to Allah. You have to
know what the context is context is, which
means you have to have an aqal and
intellect
in order to understand the context. And you
have to have their or you have to
have access to their through and so on
and so forth.
And there must be an ability to make
their ilm relevant in that context applying the
ilm.
We could talk about this another time, but
I thought I'd just, bring that to your
attention.
So what are the 5 key assumptions that
we wanna be addressing?
Well, the first thing we need to understand
is that the LGBTQ
plus ideology maintains that same * * and
gender fluidity
are not immoral, and they are a right.
So, basically, you know,
same * *
is not immoral and is an individual right.
Gender fluidity is not immoral, and it is
an individual right. So what the kind of
5
philosophical
or epistemic assumptions that
are behind this narrative, this
assertion.
Now, by the way, these assumptions, some of
them can contradict each other, and there may
be other assumptions.
But I wanted to unpack the 5 key
assumptions so you're equipped
in order to basically provide a positive case
from the perspective of Islam's view on this
issue.
So the first assumption is, my dear brothers
and sisters, is that they say human beings
possess their own bodies. They have ultimate ownership
over over their own bodies
and may, as such,
do whatever they want with their bod with
their bodies.
Number 2. Assumption number 2.
Same * * and gender fluidity are lifestyle
choices that are strictly individual matters.
Every person has the fundamental
individual right to adopt them
should they wish to do so.
Assumption number 3. There are no sound moral
objections
to same * *
and gender fluidity.
So they say, look, there are no more
objections to this way of life, to gender
fluidity and same * *,
So leave us alone. It's not immoral.
Assumption number 4,
sexuality
and desires are identity
shaping features.
This is important.
Sexuality
and desires are identity
shaping features.
Therefore, they have to be respected.
Final key assumption we're gonna be unpacking,
gender
and sexuality
are social constructs which have no fixed or
innate essence.
Okay? And this is this is important.
Now before we unpack these assumptions and actually
respond to them from an Islamic perspective, there
is an important note that we have to
add. Whatever we say at Sapiens Institute or
whatever I say as an individual,
you know, we categorically
condemn the liberal assumption that just because
we disagree with someone's way of life, that
that means we wanna inflict harm or be
violent to them.
This is absolutely ridiculous. This is actually
a very dangerous neoliberal
or postmodern narrative that some people like to
insert into the discourse.
And they basically say, oh, so you want
me killed?
Hold on a second. I I disagree with
your behavior and your worldview.
You know, let's calm down a bit. Right?
This it why why are you jumping? Where
how can you justify the logical link between
me disagreeing with your worldview?
Me finding some of your behavior immoral
and bad for society and bad for the
individual?
If me having that position, how does that
now lead
to your argument that I want you killed
or I want harm? No. This is ridiculous.
And that's why I like to remind them
and us
concerning
chapter 60 verse 8 of the book of
Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. When Allah says, Allah
does not forbid you from dealing kindly and
fairly
with those who have neither foot nor driven
you out of your homes. Surely, Allah loves
those who are fair.
Now Allah uses a keyword here, and the
and the the word is derived from Bir.
Now Bir
has comes from the triliteral stem
ba, ra, ra. Now this root has many
meanings. It means, for example, to be free
of impurity,
to be free of guilt, to be pious,
to be devoted,
to to fulfill one's promise and and goodness.
Like, Allah's name is Al Bar. He is
the source of all goodness. He is the
greatest benefactor.
Now in the context of the above of
the above of the above verse that we
just mentioned,
it means to do good, to be charitable,
to show kindness.
And this is very interesting because there's the
same root has been used in Quran 1932
in the context of one's mother. Right? How
to treat your mother.
And I think it's the words of Isa
alaihi salaam, Jesus upon whom be peace, when
he said, and made me cherish cherish my
mother.
And this root is also using Surah Al
Baqarah, the second chapter verse 44, in the
context of righteousness.
Allah says, do you bid people towards piety
and forget to do it yourself?
So the reason I'm mentioning this is because,
look, if someone's not fighting you for your
religion, right,
yeah, not expelling you from your home,
Allah is telling us to be fair with
them, to be just with them, to be
good with them, to be pious towards them,
to be righteous towards them. So this is
a general principle that's very, very important. So
you could disagree with someone whether they're an
atheist, a Christian, a Jew, a Magan, whatever.
Right?
The point here
is if they're not fighting you for your
religion and they're not expelling you from your
home, then you should be
just
You should be righteous. You should be good
to them. This is very important, very important
to to highlight because we categorically reject
the total nonsense that coming out from some
liberals and and postmodern types when they say,
ah, you disagree with me
and my worldview and my life and my
lifestyle. Therefore, you want me killed. You don't
you wanna hurt me. You wanna harm me.
Just relax. Yeah?
Relax with this snowflake attitude. It's not working.
We're intellectual human beings. We're living in a
diverse society.
There's a kind of, you know,
interplay, if you like, of different world views
and ideas. And we're allowed to discuss them,
and I'm allowed to disagree with you. And
you're allowed to disagree with me and let
the best argument win and let the truth
prevail. And it's as simple as that.
Now
it's very important to understand, my dear brothers,
when we're gonna when we're when we're gonna
be unpacking these 5 key assumptions
to understand that
every truth claim has assumptions.
There is no such thing as a claim
that is free from any philosophical
or rational or intellectual
assumption.
You could take any idea,
any idea,
and you can unpack an assumption.
Right?
And this is very important to understand because
sometimes,
you know, we think when something has an
assumption, it means it's not true. Or when
something has an or or only a few
things have an assumption or have have assumptions.
That's actually not the case.
Things can have assumptions and be true, and
things kind of assumptions that'd be not true.
And we just have to unpack unpack what
these assumptions are. And that's why it's very
important to understand this because I don't want
us to be accused of
finding weak assumptions
of a particular worldview
and building a straw man, meaning building, you
know, a forced representation of of their of
their worldview and their beliefs and their assumptions.
You were not doing that. We're not going
we're not looking we're not making up assumptions
deliberately.
Every worldview has its own assumptions.
Right? Every truth claim has its own assumptions.
Let me give an example.
Secularism.
Right? So the kind of secular
vision, the world view perspective assertion
basically says church and state must be separate.
Religion and state must be separate.
So does that have assumptions? Of course, it
does. Let's think about them. The first assumption
at least is
that secularism, the idea that religion or church
and state must be separate,
has its own epistemological
and metaphysical biases. Right? So the way that
it's understanding of truth, it's understanding of sources
of knowledge, it's truth claims,
and, you know, it's key assumptions about the
source and nature of reality.
They have their own presuppositions,
you know. For example,
it views God and religion as
unable to govern societies consisting of groups and
individuals with competing religious world views. That's an
assumption.
The reason they're saying church and state
must be separate is because they're saying that
God and religion is unable
to govern societies with, you know, groups and
individuals that have competing worldviews.
Now they may claim their assumption is is
grounded in reason and justified, but the point
is it's an assumption.
Right?
The other kind of assumption is it conceives
religion as impotent,
in addressing the the political problems of nonadherence.
Right?
So, you know, they would argue that if
the Catholic church was in power now, you
know, especially the medieval conception of the Catholic
church, it cannot deal with Muslims. It cannot
deal with Jews. It cannot deal with atheists.
It can only deal with their own people.
So, you know, from a state level for
different people to live together,
the Catholic tradition
as per the medieval conception
is is impotent
with regards to addressing political problems with a
diverse people.
Now whether they believe that is true or
false is a different discussion. The point is
it's an assumption behind that statement.
Another assumption is this,
that secularism is kind of
how can I call it?
Metaphysical
metaphysically narcissistic. Yeah. What I mean by this?
So secularism
assumes
distinct
mutually exclusive categories of the political and the
religious.
Right?
There isn't a religion that can deal with
politics effectively, and and and politics should should
basically not say much about religion.
Yes. There are nuances and and overlaps in
gray areas. I get it. But generally speaking,
that's the kind of position.
So what secularism does, it kinda projects itself
onto religion,
stripping away its its kind of political character.
And it essentially claims that only secularism can
deal with the political and religion is reduced
to private affairs.
That's an assumption.
It's a metaphysical assumption in a way, or
at least a philosophical 1. Yeah.
And
it's
kind of philosophically narcissistic that way.
Right? They they, you know, they project themselves
onto religion and all other world views. Right?
Only secularism
has the ability to deal with the public
affairs with with politics.
Religion is reduced to private affairs. So it's
projecting itself that way because it strips
the political character of religion
or at least of some religions, especially Islam.
Islam also has obvious or an obvious political
character.
And it strips it away saying, no. It's
just reduced to to to private affairs.
Or at least it says that if it
does go into the politics, it cannot achieve
what secularism can achieve, and it can't deal
with diverse groups of peoples with different competing
world views. Now whether you agree with this
analysis or not is neither here or there.
It was as quick
example to show you that every statement, every
truth claim has its own assumptions. And this
is very, very important.
So let's go to the first assumption
of
the LGBTQ
plus
ideology. And we spoke about this, and let
me just summarize. Human beings possess their own
bodies. Right?
So
this is kind of secular materialistic in nature.
Okay? So this assumption amongst many of us
here adherence, and yes, there are people who
believe in God that follow this worldview as
well, which we're gonna discuss very briefly. But
generally speaking, it's a kind of secular materialistic
assertion. Right? That human beings, you know, have
sovereignty over their own bodies. They are masters
of their own bodies. They own themselves. They
possess their own bodies.
Now don't get me wrong. Islam has given
us agency over our bodies, but we have
to
use our bodies in a way that is
pleasing to Allah.
But met metaphysically,
fundamentally,
you know, we reject this claim, which we're
gonna discuss. But what they basically say is
humans own their own bodies. If they own
their own bodies, they can do whatever they
want with their bodies. Right?
Obviously, there are some caveats like the harm
principle, which we'll talk talk about in a
few moments. But the point is,
you know, they say you could do whatever
you want with your body, and this includes
legal * with the opposite gender,
identifying as any gender,
* with the same gender,
transitioning into the opposite *,
and that's what it includes.
Now the only restriction as we we mentioned
is that in doing whatever they want with
their bodies, they cannot cause significant harm to
others or themselves, which is based on the
harm principle.
And the harm principle, you know, as
was cited well, as we can cite the
British philosopher, John Stuart Mill,
is basically the idea that people should be
free to act as they wish as long
as their actions do not cause harm to
others.
And Mill and Mill John Stuart Mill, you
know, elaborated on this. He basically said, the
only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised
over any member of a civilized community against
his will is to prevent harm to others.
In the part which merely concerns himself,
his
independence
is of right absolute
over himself, over his own body and mind.
The individual
is sovereign. Okay?
Now, obviously, this is a contentious issue because,
you know, what is defined as harm?
You know, this is,
harm to others. But what does harm to
others mean? What is the relation between the
individual society, society and the individual? If you
have an liberal assumption, an atomistic and individualistic
assumption
of the human being that the primacy is
on individual and the individual is like an
abstract entity,
devoid from social obligations and attachments,
then you're gonna have a different understanding what
means. Right?
And and this is something that we can
unpack a little bit later.
So they
you know,
this is why some well, many actually,
secularists and and
and liberals and postmodernists
and and basically, I call them,
the people of desire.
Yeah. So, like, pro abortion activists, they often
employ this and they say my body, my
choice.
Right? It's actually a ridiculous slogan
because the assumption behind that slogan is that
they actually have they're they're sovereign over their
own bodies. They own their bodies, and they
could do whatever they want within the law.
Well,
we obviously, we reject that as Muslims, which
we're gonna discuss in a few moments inshallah.
Allah fundamentally owns you. Allah is the sovereign.
Allah Allah is the king of all kings.
Allah owns our bodies. He's given us rights,
and he's given us agency that we can
use our bodies within the law. But what
law? Not liberal or secular law, Islamic law,
and within the Islamic moral framework.
And we can't fundamentally argue that it's mine.
I could do whatever I want with it
because it's actually not yours. It's been given
by Allah. So you can only do what
what you want within what Allah wants. Right?
And what Allah has, commanded and what he's,
allowed and not allowed. Right? And that's a
different discussion for sure. Now
I did say this has a secular materialistic,
character,
this whole kind of assertion that it's my
body. I possess my body. I can do
what I want whatever I want. Because they
basically said that, you know,
the heat they they they reject or they
don't really take seriously the idea that god
created them and god owns their bodies. Right?
So some religious people who adopt the LGBTQ
plus
ideology
may believe in God.
They may even believe that God owns their
bodies, but they would basically say and they
would argue that he allows us to do
whatever we want with our bodies. So what
they really have assumed within that is a
kind of either deistic understanding
or a kind of set secular or liberal,
epistemological,
argument or assumption. They're saying, yeah, god created
us. He he owns our bodies fundamentally, but
he's allowed us to do whatever we want.
And therefore, basically, they just basically have become
subjugated within the secular or liberal paradigm.
And it's a liberal epistemological
argument. Why? Because they would refer to
liberal laws. They will refer to liberal morality.
They will refer to secular laws and secular
morality,
in order for them to say we can
do whatever we want irrespective if god created
us and owns our bodies or not.
So that's an, very important caveat. So that's
the first assumption. Yeah? So why is an
assumption? Well, we know it's it's quite obvious
because they basically say that, you know, I
could transition to any gender.
I can basically
have * with,
the opposite * or or or or have
same * relations.
No problem.
I could have same * *. No problem.
It doesn't harm others. I fundamentally own my
body. I can do whatever I want as
long as it doesn't harm others or in
particular, it doesn't harm myself to a certain
degree. And they cite this the the harm
principle, which we've mentioned, but the harm principle
is contentious because it has its own assumptions
as well because, you know, what is deemed
as harm to society. Right? That and that
has its own kind of, you know,
perspective as well. If you're a liberal, you're
gonna have a liberal conception of the relation
between the individual society and so on and
so forth. And, you know, harm will be
restrict restricted
maybe just to society because I understanding of
crime and morality
is between individuals or individual society. You know,
God has no say. You can't do a
crime against God. But we actually do believe
that in the Islamic tradition as well. And
we also believe that there is an interesting
interplay between individuals in society, society individuals. We
don't have a liberal conception.
The liberals have an individualistic conception. Therefore, what
they would deem as harm will be different
to us because we don't have this kind
of individualistic atomistic
understanding of the human being. And because we
do believe that, people's actions,
on a social level can,
evoke and produce harm. It could be detrimental
to social cohesion and and so on and
so forth.
So let's go to assumption number 2.
Assumption number 2, as we say, is basically
is the individual right. Right?
You know, human beings can transition
into any gender.
Human beings can have same * *
because it's it's the individual right,
and that's what it is. It's just an
individual right. Now this individual right
basically
is based on the idea that the individual
has a right to love anyone
in any way they want and express that
love in any way that they want
irrespective
of their gender. Obviously, there are legal parameters
such as age and so on and so
forth. But generally speaking,
you could love what you who you want
in any way that you want as long
as it's within the law, secular law, and
you could change and transition to any gender.
Right?
And they also assert that,
you know, identifying
as any gender, irrespective
of biological and cultural markers,
and
transitioning it into and into in any into
any gender is a moral and legal entitlement.
Right? That's what the LGBTQ
kind of ideology would say. It's a moral
and legal entitlement.
Now there's a few things here. This assumption
gives the importance just to the individual. Right?
So the primacy is on the individual. There's
there is a kind of individualistic
notion of rights
and individualistic
conception of rights. So we don't have to
talk about the difference between positive human rights
and negative human rights. Generally speaking in the
west, there's a kind of,
negative conception of of human rights, But we
don't have to go into this into too
too much depth. The point is there is
a particular conception of individual rights. Yeah?
And this LGBTQ plus assumption assumes a secular
or liberal conception of rights.
And in this context is that individuals are
rational agents.
They can decide what they can do with
the bodies and who they decide to have
* with.
And social obligations or attachments or even
divine obligations or the obligations we have to
the divine
are not considered as important or relevant or
or they're not considered at all. Yeah. So
as you can see here, they have a
particular conception of rights. And this is very
important for Muslims, by the way, because when
we kind of discuss our worldview, our paradigm
with, you know,
our fellow human beings,
Sometimes we jump into the paradigm
of our interlocutor.
We jump into the paradigm of the 1
who is disagreeing with us. And especially when
it comes to notion of rights. Yeah. Islam
believes in human rights
too. So we're gonna adopt the, you know,
the UN,
charter
of the, you know, the universal declaration of
human rights. Yeah. We believe in every single
1, and we believe in your conception of
them and your application and the way you
prioritize them. No. This is complete nonsense.
Number 1, it's not a universal declaration. It's
a it's actually fact the universal declaration of
human rights actually a liberal project. This is
well known. If you read the works by
professor,
his name just has has actually jumped out
of my brain.
Professor forgot his name. He wrote he wrote
a book. It's called
actually, let's go to check Google. Yeah?
The liberal project and the liberal
liberal
project
and human rights and human rights. I think
the book is called,
the project in human rights. That's the 1.
His name is
yeah. So it's called the liberal project in
human rights, the theory and practice of a
new world order order.
Professor John Chawe from LSE University,
and Eliza,
I can't pronounce the rest of her name,
Kaczynski.
Yeah?
And in the introduction, he talks about this.
No. So not in the introduction. Throughout the
whole book, he basically argues it's a liberal
concern. It's a liberal project. Right?
Now there may be some overlaps. We'll agree
with them, you know, in kind of the
the kind of there are common,
there are kind of commonalities
for sure, but their conception, application, and prioritization,
is done through the Islamic paradigm. Right? And
that's why it's very important to highlight this
because sometimes we get affected
by the kind of hego hegemonic
discourse of, you know, liberalism and secularism that
and and that's the nature of ideologies, especially
liberalism and secularism.
It wants to basically subjugate us,
from a worldview perspective.
And that's why, generally speaking, Muslim, religious minorities,
religious speakers, religious intellectuals would only be practically
tolerated
if there are liberalized versions of themselves.
But generally speaking, Islam doesn't have that kind
of, ability to be subjugated. You know? The
Muslims are not gonna be a subjugated dominated
minority from the intellectual perspective. We're gonna actually
articulate ourselves positively.
Yeah. There are some Muslims who actually have
been consumed by that
hegemonic narrative. Right?
But they're easily exposed within our community. And,
unfortunately, the, our Christian
cousins, if you wanna call them that, especially
the academic types,
you know, they have stripped away any kind
of,
real character of Christianity from a more legal
perspective. And they it's just become just liberalized.
And that's why many
many
Christian academics would attack Muslims and people like
myself
or Muslim academics, whatever the case may be,
and they would and they would have liberal
arguments against Islam. It won't be Christian arguments.
And that's why 1 way of dealing with
them is to ask them, well, are you
arguing from a Christian perspective or liberal perspective?
I mean, who are you? You know, you
claim to be this Christian, but you sound
like a liberal and a secularist. Right? I
had that recently on Twitter. You had some,
so called academics who just made certain statements,
and I unpacked their assumptions
and the falsities
attached to their perspective, and I don't think
they responded. But the point is,
yes.
You got the point. Anyway, let's move away
from Sheikh Google.
So the primary sees on the individual. Right?
And this is important. So we would argue
as Muslims, well, we have our own conception
of rights. Yeah.
Who has the right to give us our
rights?
Right? And this is quite interesting because
even the idea of freedom,
which is basically the absence of coercion,
and the absence of coercion is fundamentally, if
you study it properly,
is
that your right rights have not be right
violated.
But then the argument is, well, what conception
of rights are you talking about?
So if you have a particular conception of
rights, and as long as those rights are
not violated, then you're free. And we would
say the same thing. Allah has given us
rights. He created us.
He is the king of all kings. He
is the creator.
He is the most merciful. He is the
source of all goodness.
He is the wise. He is the loving
and he has given us rights for all
human beings. We even have this concept in
Islam.
The rights of the servants.
The rights of the worldly servants.
And
and, we would say as long as those
rights are not right right violated, then we're
free. They would say, for example, what Islam
is coercive and prevents freedom
because they are assuming a liberal notion of
rights or a
negative notion of rights or individualistic
notion of rights.
And they would say, well, if some does
allow some of those, therefore,
you are against freedom or you are oppressors.
Oh, we're gonna reject that claim
because we don't adopt your conception of rights.
So
and and
as long as we have an understanding of
the conception of rights as per what Allah
and his messenger has have given us as
long as those conception of rights are not
violated then you're free. So the date debate
shifts from pointing the finger of calling you
an oppressor or that person an oppressor. It
shifts to what is the correct conception of
rights. And that's what we want. That's what
dawah is about. We wanna talk to them
about the unicity of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala.
The the tawheed of Allah, why he's worthy
of worship, you know, that he exists. He's
he deserves our humble adoration that we have
to submit to Allah, to love Allah, to
adore Allah, and to obey Allah. And likewise,
we have to obey the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi
Wasallam.
So that's the second assumption. 3rd assumption,
they would argue that
there are no
sound moral objections to same * *
and to,
what you might call it, gender gender fluidity.
That's what they're gonna say. There is no
there is no
sound moral objections. Right? Leave us alone.
We're not harming anybody.
Why why do you think it's immoral? It's
not immoral. Yeah. Stop being a bigot. Right?
They'll have all of these kind of,
narratives.
So what they're basically saying is that same
* *, genderfluency do not have any wrong
making features.
Now the claim, that claim itself
is basically assumes
a particular
moral framework, and this is important. Yeah.
It assumes a particular moral framework. Because what
do they say? They say there is nothing
about same * *
and nothing about gender fluidity
that inflicts
significant harm,
violates anyone's autonomy,
is unfair,
or violates anyone's individual rights.
So there's nothing about same * * and
gender fluidity that harms someone, violates someone's rights
or autonomy, is unfair, or violates any violates
anyone's individual rights.
So therefore, they would say it's not immoral.
There's nothing wrong with same * *. There's
nothing wrong with gender fluidity.
Now, but there is an assumption behind this.
There's a clever game that's being played.
The the assumption is that we adopt a
moral position or they adopt a moral position
of
utilitarianism
and deontological
ethics. Yeah?
So they adopt a form of ethics known
as utilitarianism
or deontological ethics.
So these are normative ethical theories, and they
adopt these theories as a kind of moral
reference or frame
in order to understand
what is good and what is bad, how
to act, and how to not act. Yeah?
So what is the logical conclusion of the
argument? They basically say, if there is nothing
morally wrong with homosexuality,
then there is no reasonable basis on which
to deny homosexual individuals and same * couples
the same rights and privileges
enjoyed by heterosexual individuals and opposite * couples.
Now from their perspective, they're trying to make
it coherent. Although historically,
the deontological
ethicists and the utilitarian ethicists, they actually used
arguments within their framework to argue against homosexuality.
Right? So it's not simple as, yeah, we're
adopting these secular normative ethical theories. I'm gonna
adopt utilitarianism,
and I'm gonna adopt deontological ethics, and I'm
gonna maybe combine them both. And as a
result, I'm gonna show that same * *
is not a problem and gender fluidity is
not a problem. No. No. No. No. No.
It is not as simple as that. When
you study
even these norm normative ethical theories,
especially historically, you will see
these ethicists who actually used arguments
within that moral paradigm to argue against same
* *. But anyway, we we are where
we are. The point here is this shows
how ideology,
you know, affects the way we understand even
our own more ethical paradigm. But the point
is very important here. And what is the
important point? The important point is that this
is only morally coherent from their reference point,
from from their more,
moral, theory. And their moral theory or the
normative ethical theory is utilitarianism
and deontological
ethics, which we're gonna quickly make you understand
what these are if you don't know. But
the point here is, it's only coherent from
that perspective. We we are under no moral
obligation,
no epistemic obligation to adopt
deontological ethics or utilitarianism.
Yeah. We are under no obligation. We're divine
command theorists. Allah's commands.
Right?
And we could show how they are superior.
So in order for you to understand this
a little bit more, what is utilitarianism
without going into too much detail?
Utilitarianism
focuses on utility. Basically,
the well-being.
Right?
So it it focus on the collective welfare,
and it identifies more goodness with the greatest
amount of happiness
for the greatest number of people, which is
called the greatest happiness principle.
This is different from ethical egoism.
Ethical egoism is also a form of a
consequentialist theory just like utilitarianism
because it focus on the consequences.
But ethical egoism is basically that, you know,
what is moral is that you just focus
on your own individual happiness, not the collective.
And that's the main difference between ethical egoism
and utilitarianism.
Anyway, we're focusing on utilitarianism,
and and they focus on the greatest happiness
principle, which is what is good is that
if
there is
the increase in collective happiness
or there is a decrease in collective suffering
or ill being. Yeah?
So it identifies
immorality,
therefore,
as more pain or ill being
collectively
than well-being and happiness for the greatest number
of people. So what they would say is
maximizing happiness
or minimizing sadness or minimizing suffering for the
greatest number of people
is is is basically
the best thing to do, is what is
good. Right? So if a moral action
increases
the ill being, the suffering of the collective,
then that is morally bad. If an action
increases
the
well-being
or the happiness for the collective, then it
is morally
good. And, you know,
consequence this type of consequential theory utilitarianism
derives from the 19th century British philosophers such
as Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill. Now of you know,
if you're critical if you're a critical thinker,
you you'll be thinking now straight away. Hold
on a second.
Well, what is happiness? What is well-being? Yeah.
That's another interesting,
insight. Also, if we have a met have
eschatological
notions, if we believe in the akhirah, then
it then it skews the kind of utilitarian
calculus now. Because if there is a heaven
and a *, then the greatest well-being is
that you what you do here is gonna
make you happy forever.
Right? So if what you do here is
gonna make you sad forever, I e go
to *,
then by virtue of that, that's an immoral
thing. So you could even,
you know, turn the tables on them. Right?
You could even adopt utilitarianism.
You could say, yeah. III
for argument's sake, let's take utilitarianism
as a strong moral theory to find out
what is good and bad. However, I believe
in the hereafter, and I could prove that's
the case. And I believe some actions lead
you to *, some actions lead you to
paradise, and these are eternal realities.
So,
I believe same * * is is 1
of we can is 1 of those actions.
And therefore,
it's gonna be ill being and suffering for
an eternity.
Therefore, according to you, the principles of utilitarianism,
same * *
is morally wrong. Now obviously, they would disagree
because these are secular normative ethical theories. Yeah?
But, again, why why why are you imposing
secularism on me? I believe in the akhirah.
I believe in the day of judgment. I
believe in heaven and *, and I could
prove these things to be true. So why
are you imposing this on me? And that's
an interesting take. You could turn the tables
on this 1.
Right. Deontological ethics, the term deontology
finds its etymology in the Greek word,
which is means duty or obligation
or that which is necessary, hence, moral necessity.
Yeah?
And generally speaking, the ontological
approach rejects
that the moral worth of an action is
based on its consequences. And that's the consequentialist
theories like ethical egoism and utilitarianism
that we just briefly discussed. So it doesn't
really say the consequences of a particular action
dictate the more more worth of an action.
For them, it's more more about, you know,
moral duties or obligations.
You know? And they develop more criteria
to discuss what those moral duties and obligations
are.
And they, therefore, they would argue that moral
agents like human beings have to honor human
rights and meet moral obligations
even at the cost of an optimal outcome,
even if it basically decreases the collective happiness.
Yeah. So they're not consequentialist. However, if you
wanna get really, really nuanced,
it's not always the case that the ontological
ethicists deny all type of consequences
and it's not the case that utilitarian
ethicists
deny
any type of obligation. It's not it's not
there are some subtleties and nuances here. But
generally speaking,
deontological
ethics doesn't really focus on the consequences for
the moral worth of a particular action. They
say it's about developing rational criteria to assess
what these moral duties and obligations are, and
therefore, more agents have to honor these duties
and obligations
even at the cost of an optimal outcome,
yeah, which would be odds with the utilitarian
ethicist.
And there are 3 main categories of deontological
ethics,
agent centered deont deontological
ethics,
patient centered deontological,
theories,
and contractualist deontological
theories. We don't have to go into them.
It's not necessary, but I think I think
you get the point.
But just to reemphasize,
deontological
ethics argues that the more worth on action
does not on the consequences, but a different
criteria must should be used, such as using
rational criteria
to to actually understand
what is a moral duty and a moral
obligation.
Here's an example.
In the early 19th century America,
many members of the antislavery movement argued that
slavery was wrong
even though
slaveholders
and the Southern American society in general, they
economically benefit from slavery.
So according to the utilitarian
thinkers, they'll be like, you know what? Slavery
is not that bad, you know, because
collectively,
on the whole,
you know, our utilitarian
calculus shows that there's generally more
happiness and well-being for the whole. Forget these
guys. Right? These these these,
these black people, these Africans, that's what they're
gonna say. Forget them. They're minority because when
you look at the
whole southern American society and the slaveholders,
increase economics prosperity,
you could build roads, hospitals, you could have
happiness and well-being.
Fine at the cost of this minority, but
look, utilitarian calculus says
it's, you know, it's the net it's the
net calculus, isn't it? It's the net calculation.
What is the net happiness? And you have
great happiness and and and, you you have
greatest,
well-being.
So for the utilitarian, they're like, you know
what?
Maybe slavery is not bad after or that's
what maybe how they were arguing at that
time. But that's why, generally speaking, we can't
be developed straw men. We can't,
There there they also combine deontological ethics as
well, but another discussion for another time.
Now, historically, the most influential
theorist with regards to deontological
ethics was the German philosopher. His name was
Immanuel Kant. He died in around 1804,
born in 17/24.
Assumption number 4, identity shaping features.
So
what they assume what the LGBTQ plus community
assume here is that
desires shape people's identity,
right, and the sense of self as human
beings.
And without free freely exploring, you know, these
the desires of, you know, sexuality and
gender,
a person will be deprived of a crucial
element of authenticity in their life. Right?
Interestingly,
Ellen Riggle and Sharon Rodosk
Rodosk
Rod Rosdowski.
No. Ross
Dosk v. Do apologize.
You know you know, they basically summarized the
this kind of argument in their work, a
positive view of the LGBTQ.
And they say,
claiming our LGBT
identifies
claiming our LGBT
identities is an act of self empowerment
and may enhance our sense of well-being.
Living our life authentically, even though it may
feel risky at times, facilitates personal growth, Coming
to love and appreciate ourselves for who we
are frees
up our energy to pursue goals and activities
that are meaningful to us. So they would
say that restricting individuals from freely exploring their
sexuality and gender identity based on these desires
would result in psychological harm and hinder personal
development.
Thus, the advocates of the LGBTQ plus ideology
are basically saying that, you know, people are
have autonomy. They could determine their own authentic
identity
based on the desires
and based on their feelings. Now and, obviously,
I I find this very crude and very
kind of,
bestial,
and it's very problematic because if you continue
with that type of logic,
it can actually create harm. Right?
But we could discuss that in a few
moments. But we're here we're just here to
show what this assumption is.
The assumption number 5 is basically
gender identity sorry, LGBTQ plus narrative.
They they they basically say that,
you know,
sexuality
and gender are social construct
constructs. They have no
fixed essence. Yeah.
And this basically kind of, opens the door
to that this idea of queer theory. Right?
And many of the queer theorists
are basically those who advocate for gender fluidity,
and they basically contend that both sexuality
and gender are just mere social constructs. Right?
And they're not determined by any biological markers.
Right?
And queer theory, generally speaking and there's lots
to talk about, of course, from an academic
perspective, but we can't, you know, we have
limited time. But queer theory, generally speaking, is
motivated by an uncontroversial and justified and justified
point,
which is that our understanding of masculine and
feminine has changed over the years, meaning in
western society.
Not only that, they also argue that biological
essentialism
is not accepted in academic discourse, which is
true,
because, you know, a biological essential essentialism basically
says that it's only biology that dictates who
we are.
Obviously, we know it's a combination of biology
and society.
But what they say now, they go to
the extreme, and they say it's not biology
at all. Right?
And what's interesting, queer theory, the kind of,
you know,
which is really justifying
gender fluidity,
is based on some postmodern principles. Now whether
these postmodern principles
can be used within a certain framework,
whether or not they,
you know, are not,
adhered to anymore,
This is not the discussion here. The the
point is they were at some point or
are according to some postmodern principles.
And these the first principle is basically radical
skepticism.
Yeah.
So what does this mean? So generally speaking
in postmodern discourse, radical skepticism
basically says there is no method
there's no objective method to obtain objective truths
about reality.
Simple as that.
And there and and therefore, from that perspective,
there is a commitment to cultural constructivism that
we don't have to discuss this. But what
they say here is
from the point of view of gender fluidity,
therefore, if you apply it, biology, therefore, gender
is a social construction
perpetuated
in language. Therefore, biological truths and truths about
gender are a form of socialization.
Okay?
This is very important to understand.
So they they apply the kind of postmodern
principle of radical skepticism that there is no
objective method to obtain objective truth about reality.
And they therefore, biology
and gender is a social construction
perpetuated in language.
Right?
And therefore, these truths about biology and gender
are form of socialization
because people
in societies have hierarchies, these hierarchies have power.
And that leads to the next principle, which
is on social hierarchies.
So a key postmodern principle
is that social hierarchies
are basically a society
or they exist within societies, and they're based
on systems
of power.
And so therefore, they say there are social
hierarchies,
and these social hierarchies
hold the power. They decide what is knowledge.
They decide what is known, what cannot be
known, what what knowledge can be obtained.
And what key theory basically assumes is that,
you know, the fixed categories
like sexuality
are form of oppression.
Right? Because you have these social hierarchies
and you have, you know,
people in these social hierarchies are holding the
power,
and their power
basically is a form of oppression because they
are the ones who decide what can be
known and what can't be known. And
some queries like queer, yeah, queer theorists like
Judith Butler, for example,
And they would argue that people are oppressed
by social narratives.
Right? And these social narratives are built by
the use of of language.
And that's why queer theorists, they like to
agitate the language, change the language, and like
to disrupt the social hierarchies.
Some even go to the point that they
say social hierarchies
and these so called truths perpetuated by by
language, which are which is which is
perpetuate and developed, if you like,
by
these powerful these powerful hierarchies
are a form of violence.
That's what they would say.
That's why it's I mean, you may see
some videos and you're being violent to me
just because, you know, if you're having a
rational discussion saying, no. Look. You know, these
are biological facts and there are some social
facts and this is how we use language
and language is a representation of reality. They
would actually deny that and they would think
that's a form of violence. Right?
So this is very important to understand. We'll
unpack it further, but it's very important to
understand that there are 2 main key postmodern
principle that are being used in queer theory.
1 is radical skepticism and 1 in social
hierarchies.
Radical skepticism basically is that there is no
objective truth to come to there is no
objective method to,
obtain objective truth about reality.
And therefore, biology and gender is just,
you know, we should be skeptical about them.
There is no truth.
And they basically
say the other principle is that society is
based on systems of social hierarchies and power.
And the people on top of those hierarchies
that hold the power, they decide what can
be known and what can't be known,
and they use a particular language, and they
try and perpetuate those so called truths
and that so called knowledge
through that particular use of language.
And queer theory says, well, we could change
the social hierarchy. We could change the language.
Therefore, we could change the truth. Right?
And
that's why if you go into more academic
studies of queer theory, they would even argue
that you will never reach the truth because
you always have to change language. You're after
there was always gonna be a power struggle.
Right?
So there are some key thinkers for you
to just note,
postmodern and queer theorists.
For example, Michel Foucault, a French philosopher who
was a nasty human being.
I think he
raped young boys in graveyards.
I keep on forgetting the countries, either Tunisia
or Algeria. You could check this out for
yourself.
And he wrote, for example, the order of
things,
discipline and punish the birth of the prison.
He wrote madness and civilizations.
He He wrote the history of sexuality, which
is a multivolume
history of western sexuality.
And his key ideas were basically centered of
power and what we know to be true
are just constructions of language, what which he
called discourses,
and he saw power like a grid rather
than like AAA
boulder on top of you. It's more like
a grid.
And his work has is quite canonical for
queer theorists. Right?
You also have, Jacques Derrida, another French philosopher.
Why do all these dumb ideas come to
French philosophers?
Maybe something's in the garlic,
or or the French wine. Allah knows.
So Jacques Derrida, hero of grammatology,
writing and difference in speech and phenomena.
And,
his key ideas were basically languages, binary, and
hierarchical.
And he's the 1 who introduced the idea
of deconstruction,
which can have its uses, I guess, within
a particular framework. But the point is he
said he argued that language is unreliable because
it's relational.
So what he was saying is that language
does not represent reality.
It's relational within itself.
So,
meaning only exists in relation to the discourse
in which is embedded.
Right? So words don't really represent reality. That's
what he's basically saying.
And,
you know, discourses can create and maintain oppression
because someone controls that particular use of language.
Right?
And he says it was relational,
and that relational
binary aspect of language,
is, you know, because it creates hierarchy. It
can be oppressive.
So for example,
you know, he developed this idea of phalagocentrism,
which is it's a social reality that is
constructed through language that privileges the masculine. So
when you say what is the opposite of
male, some would say female, because no 1
really says well, 1 could argue, no 1
says what's the opposite of a female. It's
a male. No. And the male comes first.
So there's a relational dynamic here. Male first,
female second. Right?
Husband and wife. That's how we use language.
We don't say the wife and the husband.
Right? And given the fact that someone who
holds power has developed language in that particular
way, and language
is relational and hierarchical,
and meaning only exists in relation to these,
to to to to the discourse. It doesn't
represent a reality.
And therefore,
you should change the language because it's oppressive.
Right? And, you know, this is obviously very
dangerous. And he also had this
other idea that he coined, which was called
logocentrism,
which emphasizes
the privilege role that the logos or speech
has been accorded to the western tradition. Yeah?
But if you wanna summarize his ideas,
language is binary, hierarchical,
hierarchical, people of power to use language. Language
doesn't necessarily represent reality.
Meaning only exists embedded within that relational discourse,
and language itself favors the masculine.
And therefore, you could you know, it's oppressive
because who's dictating how we use the order
of words and the way they relate to
each other. Some oppressive man has done that.
Right? And also language can be made up
to free us because it doesn't represent reality.
Right?
So that's Derrida.
And so you could start to understand what
we've said about the queer theory and those
2 applied principles, where these ideas have been
coming from. You also have Simone de Beauvoir.
I mean, she was a feminist existential philosopher.
Her life was a contradiction, to be honest,
because as you see, the way she spoke
about,
Jean Paul Sartre, her partner, but anyway,
that's another discussion for another time.
And and in the second *, she basically
says that someone is not born a woman,
they become a woman.
So she's basically saying that, you know, what
it means to be a woman is not
necessarily a biological fact. And so she facilitated
the idea. It was, like, the early kind
of thinker
that basically said that the * you are
assigned is not the * that you can
become. Yeah.
Also, you have Gail Rubin. She's an anthropologist.
She she wrote, for example,
the traffic in women note on the political
economy of *. She also
wrote thinking *
notes for radical theory of the politics of
sexuality. You can see that a lot of
these thinkers are fetishize fetishizing *. Right? Especially
for that, you know, history history of sexuality
and the multi volume volume work.
These people had a fetish with regards to
gender, *.
III kind of believe that it's not purely
motivated by rational or intellectual concerns.
I think they had issues at home. That
means there's a psychodynamic element there for sure.
But, anyway,
key idea ideas are
that the objective of family is to reproduce
gender
and to make heterosexuality
normal. Right?
That's why they would have words like, I
think it's heteronormativity.
Yeah. And
basically
she basically, in her work, allowed the idea
that gender could be produced. I mean, 1
of her essays, if you if you read,
like, the first 3, 4 paragraphs,
she's kinda justifying, I think, child *
for what I remember. It's been a while
since I read it. But just look at
it. Just look at it. Yeah.
Anyway, she allowed that the idea that gender
can be be
produced and there are systems in place to
reproduce gender
and heteronormativity.
Yeah.
So gender norms like male and female are
repressive because family is an oppressive structure, and
it's been designed to produce
to to to to make heterosexuality
normal, and we conform to them. Therefore, we
have to break down the family,
break down the hierarchy.
Judith Butler, I think she's she's still alive.
Now interestingly, she's done some great work for
the Palestinians from a dehumanization
perspective. Right?
And that's why we have to be very
kind of careful when we enjoy some person's
work
that it basically creates this
immoral bias for other work. We just have
to be just. Yes. Thank you very much.
You've talked about dehumanization.
We agree on these principles, but there's some
other stuff that you've been talking about that's
utter nonsense and it's destroying society.
So her key work was gender trouble,
feminism and the subversion of identity.
Now this is very important because this this
this will make a lot of sense to
you. Right?
She basically came up with the idea called
gender performativity.
Now she's not saying that you perform gender
like an actress or an actor,
but rather
gender is
a thing that a person does.
Yeah.
And there are no innate factors. Remember, they're
they don't believe in any biological markers.
Right?
No biological markers.
This is very important. Remember, they're skeptical about
this as well, and they reject it categorically.
They don't say it's a combination of social,
you know, pressure
or or or social
realities
and biology. They say they say no. Biology
is out. We're very skeptical about biology because
of these true so called biological truths are
from hierarchies
with people who hold the power, and they
tell us what what we should know, what
we shouldn't know. And they use a certain
language to actually frame
and to to perpetuate those truths. And, you
know, because they have a deridian understanding of
language, it doesn't represent reality and is relational.
We could challenge those the the relational aspect.
We could challenge
that language, create a new language. We could
challenge the hierarchy. Therefore, there'd be a different
truth. Therefore, we should be very skeptical about
any truth, even biological truth. And this is
troubling. Right?
Anyway, so what she basically says and it's
actually quite smart. Yeah. It's smart, but it's
dumb at the same time. So gender performativity
is that you don't perform gender
like an actor,
but you basically
have your own agency and power, and you
have your own use of language. And by
virtue of that, you could create your own
gender.
And she gives an example of a priest
in, you know, many western countries. You have
a priest in the wedding ceremony,
and the priest says,
by the power vested in me,
I now pronounce you
man and wife. See? Derrida will be running
in his grave here. Why do you say
man and wife? You say wife or man.
Change
the the phalagocentrism
here. Yeah. Anyway so there's I now pronounce
you man or wife.
She makes an interesting argument. She says, well,
before the priest said that statement,
they haven't really changed. Right?
But once he's made that statement, now they're
man and wife.
See, you could change your reality
through power and language. In this case, the
priest had the power to make that announcement
legally and religiously,
according to, the western Christian tradition,
and he used language to perpetuate that, to
make that happen, which was I now pronounce
you man and wife.
Goal, therefore,
I can use
my own agency
and my own language, and I could be
a 2 spirit penguin
just by virtue of my own agency, power,
and the language that I've used.
Right?
It's actually it's actually ridiculous. Right?
It's smart in a way,
but there is a there and that's why
these people need to study more philosophy because
there is a kind of comparing apples and
pears here. You can't compare
the priest and what he has said
and the kind of legal announcement of a
union between a a man and a wife
in marriage
with gender.
You just can't do that.
Because
the priest would have no
authority
if there was a man and a woman,
wanted to get married.
And he basically said,
and now, you know,
in front us to in front of us
today,
there is a cat and a dog,
and we're going to do a
animalistic,
sexual union
between
the the cat and the dog. And we're
gonna pronounce them as,
you know,
cat wife and dog husband.
It wouldn't work because
there is there is no reality in any
kind of alternate universe or even in this
universe
whereby
his power and the language that he's using
now makes sense because in front of him
is actually
a male and a female. In front of
him is someone who basically
wants to be considered
as a man
and and and and and a woman, and
they want to be in a union called
marriage, which has a particular
more, you know, more historical cultural,
basis.
So although power and language plays a role,
but there there are limits to that. But
what she's done, she's broken those limits.
And by virtue of what she's saying, me
now right in front of you, I can
say with this beard, with this hair,
with this tired voice, which sounds tired, I
guess,
I can say I am a black lesbian.
And remember, queer theory, they should never have
a problem with this because they reject any
biological markers. Biology,
right, is you have to be radical radically
skeptical.
And someone there are social hierarchies and people
are hold power in these hierarchies, and they
use language in particular to perpetuate those truths.
Right? So what you see of me with
a b and I look like a man,
those things we need to be we need
to challenge them and be radically skeptical about
them because they're perpetuated by people who hold
power in those hierarchies and they're perpetuated by
language that doesn't that doesn't represent reality. Remember
the Derridian understanding of language? Language doesn't represent
reality. It's relational.
Right? The meaning is within the discourse.
So Hamzah can say,
why not? With his own power, his own
language, because he's agitating that discourse,
agitating that social hierarchy,
agitating that biological,
truth, those so called biological truths, agitating that
that use of language. And he's saying he
has power. He's making his own language up
language up. Henceforth,
his name is now Sambina,
and he is a black lesbian.
Yeah. I can say that within these principles.
Upsert. Absolutely upset.
So
what's the key point here now? The key
point here now, dear brothers and sisters, which
is very important is to understand that given
the fact that we can unpack these assumptions
and intuitively and rationally, we know these assumptions
and I've indicated it throughout me every time
we've spoken about 1 of these assumptions, at
least, at least 3 or 4 of them,
that they are not universal or absolute.
And this is the the point here.
The very fact that we could unpack these
assumptions to these thing, these so called activists
and ideologues,
we could say to them, you have your
worldview with these assumptions. These assumptions are not
absolute and they're not universal.
So why are you forcing this down our
throats? Why are you acting in this hegemonic
way? The irony, you're the 1 who's using
the hierarchy and the power to shove this
down our throats.
These assumptions are assumptions and they're not universal
and they are not absolute by virtue of
what we've just discussed. Therefore, you have no
right to shove it down our throats and
Muslims and humanity in general are under no
epistemic
and under no more obligation to accept what
you're saying.
This is why it's very rare to have
a philosophical,
decent, rational discussion with these people
because they would just get angry. You're being
violent to me. How dare you? You know,
you're immoral. Right? They're they're the rubiogates, to
be honest. Because we want to have this
discussion, yes, nicely, peacefully, with wisdom, and and
with with in an amicable way,
you know, rational, polite discourse
allows to have it.
And we wanna expose the fact that you
have assumptions. The very fact you have these
assumptions, the very fact that they're not absolute
and they're not universal
should calm you down and you should not
be hegemonic
and force it down our throats and try
to establish it all around the world. Right?
This is very important.
And that's why the the many advocates from
the LGBTQ ideology, frankly, they're just, they advocate
a form of intellectual narcissism. Right? They think
they're right or a form of intellectual ego,
egocentrism.
Their way of seeing the world is the
only way of seeing the world. No. I'm
so sorry.
And once we can show that just by
what we discussed so far,
we should now say to them, leave us
alone.
By virtue of this, because it is, leave
us alone.
We can show that you have assumptions that
are that are not absolute
and they are not universal. Therefore, leave us
alone. You have no right
to force us down our throats.
So
LGBTQ plus or Islam. And this now let's
talk about
AAA framework for engagement.
So the very important thing for us to
understand is, as believers, we should be on
the offensive, not the defensive. Sometimes we're too
much on the defensive. Okay? And we need
to be on the the the greatest form
of defense is attack. So we should be
on the intellectual
offensive.
Because the LGBT ideology
and Islam basically holds
contrasting world views and paradigms. Yeah. We have
a different view on morality and rights.
They're grounded in different ontologies, how the source
and nature of reality. Right? They're grounded in
different understanding of the source and nature of
reality.
They represent distinct perspectives.
Right?
And,
therefore,
the conclusion should lead to
which perspective is correct, which worldview is correct,
which paradigm is correct.
So this would allow us to focus on
the foundational aspects of Islam.
Allah that Allah exists, that he's worthy of
worship, that Islam is true, that the person
should be followed.
And we have arguments for this. We could
give people the
the the the
showcase the veracity of the Islamic world view.
Because given the fact that we have we
have shown that the LGBTQ plus agenda has
its own assumptions based on its own world
view, and some of these assumptions rather contradict
each other as well.
But the point here is given the fact
that's the case and Islam, which what we're
gonna talk about in the next few minutes
that Islam has own perspective on this.
And the reason that's the case because it
comes from different contrasting paradigms and world views,
different ontologies, you know, the understanding of the
source of nature of reality. Therefore, the question
should follow, the intellectual question should follow
which worldview is correct.
And that's where we want them. That's the
dua according to Allah, according to tawheed, according
to his names and attributes, according to worshiping
him, according to following the prophet sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam. We have good arguments for this.
So that's why we should advocate for the
Islamic world view. Explain the concept of tawhid,
the oneness of Allah, and the rational base
of Islam,
emphasize monotheism,
emphasize the worshiping Allah, purpose in life, the
Quran, divine revelation.
And it said that these these foundations
determine the truth about issues such as how
we should act about gender, about sexuality.
And we should position Allah as the ultimate
authority and grounded in Islamic tradition,
in Islamic teachings.
So it's about framing the issue. So if
we highlight to the LGBTQ plus advocates that
their worldview is not universal, and it's not
universally accepted, and it's based on on assumptions
we can challenge,
and they're based on a it's based on
a worldview and assumptions that are not absolute,
then it should encourage the openness of a
possibility of an alternative.
And we should say, look, therefore,
if it is about your frame of reference,
your assumptions, your worldview, and Islam has a
different set of assumptions, frame of reference, and
worldview,
then we should ask what what world view,
what paradigm is is correct.
And therefore, we could start talking about the
foundations of Islam as we just discussed.
So let's quickly talk about Islam's take on,
these assumptions. So the assumption number 1 was
about these people think they possess their own
bodies. Well, Islam says no.
Allah fundamentally owns our bodies. Yes. We have
been given agency by Allah to use our
bodies but in a way that pleases him,
that doesn't
contravene his law.
But ontologically,
Allah, the source and nature of our body
is Allah. Allah owns us. This is a
basic aspect of
the tawheed of rububiyah, the the the oneness
of Allah's lordship or creative agency. Allah is
the king of all kings. He owns us.
He's the master
of everything that exists. He's the nourisher, the
lord, the king of all kings. Allah has
ultimate ownership.
This these arms me hamza is owned by
Allah. So,
you know, it's very important. And just to
highlight again, yes, this is the lordship of
Allah. This is Allah's lordship lordship over all
creation. But Islam appreciates that humans have agency
over their bodies. Right? And they've been given
free will to act in any possible way.
However, this free will comes with a responsibility
to obey Allah's commands. And Allah's commands are
expressive of his will, which is in line
with his nature. Allah is al bad, the
source of all goodness. Allah is al Hakim,
the wise. Al Aleem, the knowing. He's al
Rahman, the lovingly merciful, the intensely merciful. Allah
is Al Wudud, the most loving.
And so given the fact that Allah is
all knowing, he is the all wise, he
is the most merciful, is the most loving.
It follows that his commands are good for
us and that they ensure our personal and
social prosperity and well-being
And this is not just a conceptual point.
It's been
substantiated
through the practical application of these commands both
on a social and personal level throughout the
throughout the ages.
And this is very important to understand. So
if you go to Quran, Surah Al Fatihah,
first verse, you go to chapter 43 verse
9,
Quran 2384.
Quran 6102. Quran 1031.
Quran 112 verses 12 and so on and
so forth. You would see the lordship of
Allah. Allah is telling us that he's the
master and owner of everything exists.
So Islam
rejects their assumption,
and we don't we therefore, we have no
epistemic or moral obligation to accept the assumption.
Why are they forcing this on us? And
if they say, well, I don't believe in
your assumption. Fine.
Fine. But we could prove our assumptions to
be true.
That's why we want them. That's the dua
discourse. Bring them to Tawhid. Tell them why
Islam is true.
So what does Islam say on the second
assumption
about individual rights?
Well, it's very easy.
Who has the right to give us our
rights? Simple as that. Allah says in in
chapter 7 verse 28, say indeed Allah does
not order immorality.
Do you say about Allah that which you
do not know? And obviously if we study
Tawhid, affirming the oneness of Allah Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala, we know Allah is the 1 who
gives guidance. Allah is the 1 who knows
what is good for us. Allah has the
picture. We have the pixel
on a moral and knowledge and wise perspective.
Allah Allah's wisdom and goodness and love and
mercy and knowledge are the highest degree possible.
They have no deficiency and no flaw. And
Allah is the 1 who gives us our
rights.
So when they say, oh, well, it's your
individual right, you're allowed to basically,
you know, transition to any gender, and you
can have same * *. There's nothing wrong
with this. It's actually a right enshrined in
law. We just simply say, well, we don't
believe in that conception of rights.
Why are we do why do you think
we have a moral or epistemic obligation
to adopt
your understanding of individual rights
that is premised usually on a secular liberal
paradigm based on the primaries of the individual,
which is based on based on individualism,
which is basically,
the very thing that is destroying humanity. No.
Thank you. No. Thank you. No. Thank you
very much.
Keep it. Keep it to yourself. We don't
want it. Right?
So, you know, we're under no moral or
epistemic obligation to accept this.
Allah is the 1 who gives us our
rights. He is the 1 who actually wants
best for us. Allah wants good for all
human beings. He wants guidance for all human
beings. That's why he sent down the Quran.
That's why Allah says he doesn't prefer disbelief
for his servants. If you look at the
exegesis
of this verse itself, Allah is basically
is saying to us that he wants good
for people. Allah is a benevolent
king. He's the benevolent king of all kings.
This is so important for us to understand.
Allah has given us rights, we have this
in Islamic tradition, Huquk Al Ibad, the rights
of the worldly servants,
but it's the conception through divine guidance and
divine guidance is based on Allah's
limitless knowledge, perfect pure knowledge,
His love, His mercy,
his his utmost goodness,
and these rights are good for us and
they're the right rights, the right conception of
rights.
We don't have to follow their conception, negative
view or positive view or the kind of
secular liberal conception of these rights. No.
We're under no more obligation to accept that.
Now they may say, but I don't believe
in this conception. Good. This is where we
want you. Well, now let's talk about Tawhid.
Let's talk about why Allah exists, why he's
worthy of worship, why these rights are actually
good for us and where they're coming from.
So Islam are number 3. When the assumption
that says, well, there are now there are
no sound moral
objections
to gender fluidity and same * *.
Well, with all due respect, we will challenge
this.
We will challenge this
because we believe
that
Allah
we believe that Allah
is the 1 who gives us our morality.
We are divine command theorists. We're not
utilitarian
ethicists or deontological
ethicists. Yes. We have the concept of the
the masaleh
and the mafasid,
the benefits and the harms
for sure, and it's within the Islamic moral
legal framework, but it's within a Islamic paradigm.
We're not utilitarian thinkers, and we we don't
adopt, you know, the second normative ethical theories
of utilitarianism
and deontological
ethics. We're fundamentally divine command theories.
It's good
because the commands
of Allah
are based on his
will and His will is in line with
who He is, His nature.
And He is Al Barl, the source of
all goodness.
Allah is Al Ilah, the only deity worthy
of worship.
Allah is Al Rahman, the the the merciful.
Allah is Al Wudud, the most loving. Allah
is
al Hakim, the wise, and his names and
attributes are maximally perfect to the highest degree
possible. And his kamaz are essentially a derivative
of this.
And, you know, we would challenge, for example,
you know, utilitarian thinking. We would challenge, for
example,
a deontological
thinking. You know, for example, from a deontological
perspective, we would say, well, can the human
mind fully understand what moral values and duties
are? Who is to judge? To whom do
we owe the duty to be good? Aren't
duties owed?
Who can make the universal moral claim and
judgement? How do we prioritise them? How do
we apply them? Now the human mind is
limited. It has a pixelated understanding of moral
realities. Allah has the picture, we just got
the pixel. So we would challenge the deontological
ethicist by saying well, can the human mind
fully understand what moral duties and values are?
Who is to judge? To whom do we
own the duty to be good? Are duties
owned?
Who can make the more the universal moral
claim and judgment? How do we prioritize them?
How do we apply them? Islam has answers
to these questions
and the answer lies with the 1 who
is perfect,
the 1 who is most loving, all knowing,
the 1 who is all, most wise,
the 1 who is all powerful.
Allah,
and that is a sufficient rational answer by
virtue of who Allah is. Now they would
say I don't believe in Allah. I don't
believe in okay. In Khalaq, this is where
we want you. Stop trying to shove this
Ayur Ulajan down our throat and let's discuss
these fundamental
aspects and once we could show you that
then our understanding becomes more coherent.
And, you know, we could also challenge
the, the utilitarian ethicist.
And we could say, can the human mind
fully investigate the consequences or the implications of
one's moral behavior?
Isn't there a secular or metaphysical bias in
investigating the consequences? Right. What about the akhara?
If heaven and * exist, it changes how
you understand the more actions. Right?
If you ignore or reject the hereafter, then
your assessment of the consequences can be incomplete
or totally wrong.
So even just by what is happiness, what
is well-being,
Maybe you have an individualistic,
understanding of well-being.
You know, how do you truly know the
impact between an individual and and and society
or the collective? What is the dynamic here?
What frame of reference are you using to
understand all of that? With all due respect,
we say Allah, because Allah knows you. We
don't.
And we could prove that to be the
case.
And so it's very important for us to
understand that Allah is the 1 who gives
us our our morality, not secular normative theories
such as ethical theories such as deontological ethics
or utilitarianism.
Because we could say Allah can make the
universal moral claim. Allah is not limited. His
knowledge and wisdom are maximally perfect without any
deficiency in flaw. He transcends the contingent and
created reality, and therefore he could make the
universal moral claim.
Also, Allah has the moral picture by virtue
of Allah's nature as we just as we
just discussed. Allah knows the full and complete
consequences
of our moral actions.
And finally, Allah is the ultimate judge and
we have a duty towards him because because
of Allah's nature, by virtue of Allah
nature, he is the ultimate judge with regards
to what is good and bad. We have
an obligation to follow Allah's commands because he's
the only being
worthy of worship, which and that includes obedience
and submission. He's the only being worthy of
worship,
from the point and he's the only being
that is maximally good because he's al Barh.
He's the source of all goodness.
Again, this all depends on believing in Allah
and his revelation, but this is exactly where
we want them. Stop shoving this ideology down
your throat. Understand you have 5 incoherent assumptions
that can be challenged. Understand they're not universal
and absolute. Understand we have our own perspective.
That perspective comes from particular world view, and
allow us to show you why that world
view is true.
So,
obviously, they'll have a contention such as Ufifor's
Dilemma and so on and so forth, but
you could look out our other works on
the on Sapiens website or our videos that
actually addresses these kind of detractions from a
moral perspective, moral philosophy perspective
in detail.
So but I'm gonna address it very quickly.
So what they would say is, you know,
you believe in Allah's commands
is
presents a dilemma. And they cite you 3
fold's dilemma, which originally was about polytheism, but
it's been applied by atheists to monotheism. And
they basically say, is it good because Allah
commanded it, or is it good because the
commands of Allah are good? Now we would
say, well, this is a false dilemma. But
before we say this, let's let's understand what
the dilemma is. So the first 1 of
the dilemma is, is it good because
Allah commanded it? Well, if that's the case,
then
they say that Allah's commands are arbitrary. Allah
could have commanded to kill everyone over the
age of 60. And by virtue of that
by virtue of him just commanding it is
good. So therefore, there should be nothing in
the real world that we should recognize as
objectively good or bad.
The other the other horn of the dilemma
is it's good because the commands of Allah
are good. Well, if the commands of Allah
are good, then you're judging the commands with
an external goodness because how do you know
they're good?
Therefore,
good is external to Allah's commands.
So, therefore, you don't need Allah to understand
what good is.
Now there's different approaches to this in the
Islamic schools of creed, but I think 1
of the best answers by Sheikh,
Shawwal al Adehtawi, and I was taught this
by Sheikh Abdulrahman Mihirik.
And it's a fantastic answer. And basically, he
says, yes. It's good because god commanded it,
but we reject.
That is arbitrary.
Why are you assuming it's arbitrary just because
god commanded it?
Now you could go 1 route. You could
talk about God's nature and so on and
so forth, but 1 good route is to
say the following.
Allah's commands
manifested in Islamic moral and legal
law
addresses the moral needs of human beings on
a personal,
social, and political level. The commands of Allah
are like a key that perfectly fit in
a lock that opens the door to well-being
and functioning for individuals and social harmony. And
I'm not referring to well-being and and and
social harmony in a moral sense.
A key is designed for a lock. And
just like a key is designed for lock
the commands of Allah are designed for our
well-being.
Therefore it is completely irrational and absurd to
claim that Allah's commands are arbitrary. To argue
and claim that the arbitrary is equivalent of
claiming that specific key that opens a specific
door was not designed.
So, yeah, we say it's because of Allah's
commands,
but we reject the idea that Allah's commands
are arbitrary by virtue of what we just
said. And there's more to it than that,
but that's a sufficient answer for now. What
about Islam's take on
number 4, assumption number 4 that, you know,
desires form our
identity? Well, Islam says no.
Desires and sexuality
do not form our true identity.
Why why do we say that this is
self empowerment?
And this this is very interesting because in
Islamic tradition, which,
you know, we don't have to unpack too
much, but generally speaking, this whole notion of
who are you is a kind of nonsense
kind of post secular, postmodern, post liberal kind
of notion of new age spirituality. I don't
think there is anything in the Quran
that talks about, you know,
find yourself
in that way. Basically, what that is is
kind of, like, people who deny religion, believe
in some kind of superpower,
supernatural power, and they just wanna feel good
about themselves. They're like, oh, I'm gonna find
myself.
That is a nonsense question. I'm 43 years
old. That question is nonsense. Who is Hamza?
Yani, I've given up on that question yet.
Hamza is different with different people
because we're human beings, we're not human doings
and to be is to be related.
You are you discover yourself through your relationships
And the greatest relationship is with Allah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala. You're creator, the 1 that created
you. And if that is intact, then the
true you will be revealed.
It's no wonder that Allah says, you know,
do not be like those who forgot Allah
and Allah made them forget their own selves.
Right? If you remember Allah, Allah will remember
you, it is as if our sense of
self identity is contingent dependent on our relation
with Allah
To be is to be related.
I relate, therefore I am. It's not I
think, therefore I am, I relate, therefore I
am.
In actual fact, it's I love therefore I
am.
Why? Because the greatest relationship is with Allah
subhanahu wa ta'ala and and the greatest manifestation
of that relationship,
which is worship, through worship,
is love because worship entails love. As we
as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Timiyeh and many others
said that what what's ibadah, coming from the
root abada, which means subjugation, it actually means
the extreme of love and the extreme of
submission.
It means the perfection of love and the
perfection of submission. Allahu Akbar. That's why 1
of the best translations
of Surah Al Fatiha when it says it
is you that we worship.
We say it is you that we humbly
adore.
Right?
Anyway, that's another discussion. The point is your
sense of understanding of who you are through
your relationships.
And, also, it has a very liberal bias
because, you know, when you say I'm gonna
follow my desires, where are those desires coming
from?
Where are they coming from?
I thought we lived in hierarchies with social
constructs and with a particular use of language.
Right?
So that's dictating your that's dictating maybe your
feelings and your understanding of desires or that
it's evoking certain desires.
So they're not really yours, are they?
Right? Because you are your environment.
If you look at social psychology,
theories of social influence, normative social influence, informational
social influence,
we submit to the social norm in a
way, and that's how the social norm is
developed.
So who are you? You're seeing it from
a very individualistic, atomistic perspective.
Because what is a personality on a desert
island? What is compassion on a desert island?
Fine. You can have self care. I get
it. But what is real personality on a
desert island doesn't exist. You need to relate
to something and someone,
which reminds you of the Sahaba when they
went to prison and they were complaining that
when they go to the the wives, they're
a bit different.
When
they go to their family, they're a bit
different. The person, this is normal. This is
not this is not hypocrisy. This is normal.
You're gonna be different with different people.
You you are revealed through your relations.
And the greatest relation was Allah Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala. That's where you're gonna truly find yourself
when you find Allah.
Do not be like those who forgot Allah
and Allah made them forget themselves. Anyway, the
point here is
we have social
pressure.
Informational social influence is basically that we have
a need to feel certain. If we don't
find that certainty within our immediate group, we're
gonna we're gonna basically submit to the dominant
group. Normative social influence that we have a
need to belong. And if we can't get
that belonging from our immediate group, we're gonna
submit to the dominant group. This is how
social psychology works. Just study study this basic
these basic social social psychological phenomena and you
will see.
So,
you know,
so how do you know that you're reading
your desires?
And you don't even know that. They may
be they may be evoked as a result
of your environment, as a result of these
influences, not really you.
How do you know they're good for you?
How do you know
pursuing them are good for you?
What are the extremes that you can pursue?
Because no one's gonna say that, you know,
you you you could pursue all of the
desires to the extreme. That would be very
unhealthy.
That won't be self empowerment.
That won't be liberating. That won't be,
you know,
what do you call it?
Having well-being.
You can't you need to answer these questions.
So just to assume that, you know, you,
identify identify with your desires,
and therefore, you feel 1 day maybe you're
gonna be have same * attraction, and the
other day, you're gonna become,
a a lesbian. The next day, you're gonna
become because according to gender theory, you could
do that. The q, the queer, you could
do that. On Monday, I'll be a a
black lesbian. On Tuesday, I'll be a French
homosexual.
On Wednesday,
I'll be a Nigerian
heterosexual.
On on Thursday,
I'll be a,
2 spirit penguin.
On Friday,
I'll be I don't know. Whatever. Do you
see my point? That's allowed within queer theory
principles. Right? Anyway, so the thing is,
this is an animal way of animalistic beast
away of dealing with the you identify with
these desires. Number 1, the desires are not
necessarily yours. They could be evolved because of
social pressure and as we discussed in social
influence. Number 2, how do you know how
to how to manifest these desires and to
what degree? How do you know they're actually
good for you? And and why do you
say that you should identify with them? They're
just desires. To identify yourself just with these
kind of desires
is no different than being an animal. And
we're supposed to be, like, elevate ourselves from
this beastial aspect of of the human being.
But look what Allah is trying to say
to us. Allah is saying your primary identity
is worshiping Allah, is connected to Allah, is
you submitting to Allah's guidance. Allah makes this
clear clear in the Quran in chapter 28
verse 50. And who is more astray than
the 1 who follows his desire without guidance
from Allah? Who is more astray? If you
don't have Allah's guidance, you're astray.
Indeed Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
Also Allah says
in in Surah Al Baqarah verse 138. This
is the natural way of Allah.
And who is better than Allah ordaining a
way? And we worship none by him, but
him.
Quran chapter 30 verse 30, adhere to the
natural,
you know, way of Allah, natural fitra of
Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala. The way of the
fitra that Allah has created, the natural,
disposition that Allah has created within us.
And this is very important, very, very important
for us to understand. So our primary identity
is that we acknowledge that we are
humble,
adoring servants of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala.
That we don't worship our desires. Even Allah
says, have you not seen like, have you
not seen those
who take the desire as their lord?
To take as their God their desire.
We fundamentally
disagree
and
disconnect ourselves from the idea that your desires
and sexuality is your true identity as a
human being.
We have an elevated discourse.
Human beings
have been given dignity by Allah subhanahu wa
ta'ala with the ultimate purpose in life to
worship him, to obey him, to love him,
to adore him.
And we're elevating ourselves from the beast to
aspects of the human being. Yes. We have
desires, but we control them. We've given a
path to express ourselves and have true well-being.
No 1. Allah is not saying don't have
*. Allah is not saying don't make love,
of course, but within the ethical framework.
In marriage between a man and a woman,
it's good for the individual and society.
And the whole Islamic society is structured around
that,
And it's structured around elevating yourself from just
your beast to desires. Yes. I'm gonna be
angry sometimes. Yes. I may have, you know,
maybe deviated sexual ideas sometimes
or desires or whatever the case may be,
but I control them
because I am not the animal version of
me.
I am the elevated version of me. Allah
wants to elevate us from that.
This is very important for us to understand.
The final 1,
language.
Okay.
So
queer theory, what we discussed about social hierarchies
and applied postmodern principles of radical skepticism
and, you know, rejecting any kind of biological
markers
and also that we live in social hierarchies
and people have power and they use language
to perpetuate those so called truths. But But
because language doesn't represent reality, then we could
change the language, therefore change the truth, you
know, the whole theory and understanding of language
as we discussed.
And fundamentally, we we we just reject this.
And I think, you know, not much needs
to be said on this. But the first
thing is we believe that actually language does
represent reality. Allah says in Surah Al Baqarah,
the very famous verse that he taught Adam
the names of things.
This is so important.
Allah taught Adam the names of things. What
does this mean? According to the classical commentators,
Allah teaching Adam alaihis salam the names of
things refers to inspiring him. Adam,
first human knowledge of the essence of things,
their properties and names, and the foundations of
the branches of knowledge.
Right? And this is important. So we believe
language can represent reality.
It's not just relational.
It's not,
meaning is not within the relational discourse. Language
can represent an external reality. We reject the
Derivian postmodern creed theory understanding of language. Yes.
Language can be abused for sure, but we
reject that notion.
Furthermore, academic studies confirm that there is a
plethora of biological,
physiological,
and psychological differences
in men and women. Right?
Because this whole idea
of that, you know, science
is we need to be radically skeptical because
it's you know, we we we live in
social hierarchies and people have have certain power
in these hierarchies,
and they oppress us with their their conception
of what is true. And they use language
that doesn't represent reality that's relational, that's very
phalagocentric,
male centric,
and is very hierarchical, and they use that
language to perpetuate
those so called truths. And therefore, what they
talk about a man and a woman is
actually false. They'll say no. Because there are
academic studies,
biological, physiological, psychological
studies that show the difference between men and
women as Allah says.
Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala says in the Quran,
and the male is not like the female.
And this is this is very important. We
don't we we we don't have to adopt
this kind of radical skepticism. Yeah.
Also, if we wholeheartedly adopt, for example, the
so called agenda of the queer theorists,
then, you know, we could just expose it
as I just did previously.
That fine. If you're radically skeptical
about use of language because it's relational, it
doesn't represent reality, the meaning is within the
discourse, it's phalagocentric, it's male centric, it's based
on a hierarchy, and it's misused.
And if you believe that you should be
radically skeptical about any truth, even biological truths,
therefore, you can make up your own truths
by changing the hierarchy and changing the language,
and they apply that to sexually and gender.
Therefore, I can say I'm a black lesbian.
I mentioned it before. I don't think anyone
who has a sane rational mind would accept
that I'm a black lesbian.
Right?
I am married.
Heterosexual relationship.
I'm visibly a man. I'm visibly not black.
Right?
So what you could do is just expose
queer theory or expose
that 5th assumption
just by giving them these thought experiments.
Show them that the argument reduces to absurdity,
that that the way they apply their radical
skepticism and their view of language and their
understanding of hierarchy,
that it reduces itself to absurdity.
That is the best way to do it
and keep on agitating that. Keep on showing
them different examples of that of absurdity.
Now look. There is 1 undercutting defeat it
though, which is very, very powerful in my
view.
Okay? And I want you to listen to
this.
An undercutting defeated to queer theories and related
postmodernist
is in the following glaring epistemological
contradiction. I want you to listen carefully.
If you remember,
proponents of queer theory, they claim that
hierarchies and language
sources of oppression and harm. Remember, they even
said that it could be violent.
I need to think about this very carefully.
They say that we live in hierarchies and
people hold power and they oppress us with
what they think is true.
People use language which is relational, doesn't doesn't
represent reality, and the meaning is within the
discourse, very phalagocentric, is male centric, and that
language is used to oppress us or to
oppress us with their version with their version
of truth.
So what they say is hierarchies and language
are objective sources of oppression and truth,
but
here's the contradiction.
Their own theory states
that there are no objective values that can
be perceived
because they are a result of powerful hierarchies
and language
that can be challenged but not completely destroyed.
So paradoxically,
their own theoretical apparatus
requires them to acknowledge that no forms of
injustice,
harm, or oppression exist in the world with
certainty,
which makes all of the prescriptions
susceptible to criticism.
In other words,
since queer theorists and postmodernist scholars cannot provide
an objective definition of the good, they must
almost also admit
that all the perceived wrongs that they label
as oppression through hierarchies and and and and
and the phalagocentric
nature of language
is nothing more than the result of the
subjective whims. In a nutshell, they say use
of hierarchies
and and power and power, powerful structures in
those hierarchies. People hold the power in those
hierarchies.
And the use of language and how these
people of power in those hierarchies use that
language to perpetuate a particular truth, that's oppressive.
That's injustice.
That's wrong.
But their own very own principles are saying
that there is no objective truth. There is
no remember, radical skepticism, postmodern principle, there is
no objective method to acquire an objective truth.
So there's a kind
of glaring contradiction here.
So some actually
does believe that language can represent reality by
virtue of the verse that we spoke about.
And, also, when we when we talk about
this contradiction, we talk about the absurdities of
applying their queer
principles, queer theory principles, which really have been
derived derived from postmodern principles. It's applied
postmodern principles, and we show the absurdity
of their claims,
it's enough to, you know, show how Islam's
take on this issue is coherent.
So finally, my dear brothers and sisters, we
have unpacked the 5 assumptions, talked about Islam's
take on those assumptions,
and we've given you a framework for engagement.
Now the final thing to do is to
go through 2 basic,
2 basic,
contentions. Right? The first contention is they say,
hey. Don't force your assumption on on us.
Exactly.
Thank you very much. This is exactly what
I'm gonna hear from you because you're doing
that to us in the schools, in law,
ideologically,
in the social sphere sphere and space.
That's what you are doing.
And since you have admitted now by virtue
of this response
that we both have assumptions, stop shoving your
ideology down our throats.
Have the humility and realize we need to
discuss the basis of these assumptions.
This is exactly what we want to discuss.
Our assumptions come from an intellectual spiritual foundation
that is true. We wanna show it's true
and what comes from truth
is true.
This is where we want you. We want
you to respond this way. Okay. You know?
Okay. You've exposed our assumptions, but you have
assumptions too. Don't force these assumption on that
on us. Okay? Exactly. That's the way we
want you.
Since you've admitted that we both have assumptions,
stop shoving ideology down our throats.
Have the humility that we come from a
particular paradigm of world world view and allow
us to discuss our world view because we
believe it's true and what comes from truth
is true.
The next 1 is love is love. Now
with all due respect,
I don't believe that even some so called
students who identify as being Muslim actually, you
know, get affected by this. This is the
most nonsensical rhetorical trap I have heard.
Love is love. Alright.
Water is water. Drink from the toilet bowl.
* is *. Make love to a corpse.
Food is food. Eat my eat my vomit
or your dead mother. With all due respect.
Come on.
This is a nonsensical
rhetorical trap.
Of course, Muslims are people of love.
The prophet said,
love for humanity will love for yourself. This
is a hadith in Tarikh Al Kabir, narrated
by Bukhari. The language is Linnez, love for
humanity will love for yourself.
So we believe in being intentional and directional
to people that we intend good for them,
we're directing good for them, when goodness and
guidance for them. Even An Nawawi, the famous
classical scholar, when he was commenting on the
the prophetic tradition, the 13th
hadith,
tradition of the prophet in his arba'een, in
his footi hadith,
that that says, you know,
you won't truly believe unless you love for
your brother, you love for yourself. This ahi,
he said this means Muslim brotherhood, but he
also said it can be extended to insanity
and humanity. And he said, we need to
want goodness and guidance for people. That's love.
I want you to be the optimal version
for yourself. I want you to find out
who you truly are through your relationship with
your creator.
We want all good we want you to
be in a tunnel of bliss and paradise.
Allah wants that too.
That's love.
Love is intentional and directional,
and to truly love someone, you have to
be dedicated to their well-being, the goodness and
guidance. And that is the question.
Well-being, goodness and guidance. These need to be
defined and understood.
We understand them from the truth, from Islam.
You understand them from shahawad, blame with the
desires and and this false ideology.
You don't truly love them because you don't
know what guidance is. You don't know what
goodness is. You don't even know what will
be what what well-being is.
You cannot truly love someone if you
you you you claim that they should just
follow their made up sexual identity
that goes against the innate nature that defies
Allah's commands. In fact, you are oppressing them
because to truly love someone has to be
intentional and directional. You want well-being, goodness, and
guidance for them. I want you to tell
me what well-being is, what goodness is, and
what guidance is. We can do that. We
could show you why that's good.
But your assumptions are incoherent and baseless, and
they reduce themselves to absurdity.
We can show you that following Islam is
the best thing for you. That's
love. So don't give me this nonsensical rhetorical
trap.
Okay.
So
what's up?
This sucks. That was a long, long conversation.
Right. So we don't have much time, my
dear brothers,
and sisters.
Yeah.
What shall we do?
What shall we do? Shall we take some
questions? Because we got about 15 minutes remaining.
Let's take some questions.
Does anyone want
to come on the live?
I'm gonna share it on the comments.
Shouldn't get it. I'll put it on,
1 of the banners. Bear with me.
Okey
dokey.
There you go.
That's
let's take a question.
If you you could you could ask a
question on the comments, or you can basically
go directly to
the I'll try and scroll the comments. Yeah.
Be respectful. Yeah. So be nice respectful questions.
So I'm,
so we don't have much time. So
please think about your questions and
push them, put them through.
Okay? Someone has a question. If you have
a question, just you could ask it via
the comments, or what you can do is
there's the link right here. You can see
it right there,
and you could just join me and talk
to me if that's easier for you.
Okay. So
I can't see any questions yet.
So if this is your opportunity to either
come talk
or,
have the conversation.
Alright. Good. We have brothers.
Alaikum.
Assalamu alaikum. How are you brother?
You
you you have a Turkish name. Yes?
Yes. I am good. Merababa Avi. Nelson is
Emerson.
I'm impressed actually.
Masha'Allah.
How are you, bro?
I'm sorry. I
you're live.
Okay.
Oh, it's good. Okay.
I'm good.
Sean.
I didn't understand that. Yeah.
Where did I learn this from? Yes. Is
that what you said? Yeah. I learned it
from my Arkadash, my friends.
Nice. I had a lot of Turkish friends
growing up in, Hackney, Stockholm, Newton.
Okay. Nice.
What's your question, my brother? Yes. Okay. My
question is I wrote it down for ease.
So you effectively address the LGBTQ dilemma in
the west, and I thank you for that.
It was very well,
broken down. But, additionally, I wanted to ask
about this ideology
gradually gaining acceptance within Islamic countries.
Given that the framework for this ideology to
grow differs significantly between the west and Islamic
countries,
where Islamic countries still have a strong hold
on Islamic
that should not be able to integrate this
ideology. How do you see the LGBTQ
ideology evolve
in Islamic countries?
Yeah. So I can't make a,
proper assessment on this.
Although I am aware that,
Islamic countries
bear with me. I just lost my,
I've lost my window. 1 second.
Bear with me. There you go. I got
it back. Yeah. So,
I'm I'm not I'm not fully aware of
what's happening across the Muslim world concept, but
I I am aware that things are happening.
So there is a a little small movement
in Turkey.
They don't really have many marches. They get
in trouble, and they get you know,
it's not socially accepted,
and so on and so forth.
Now,
obviously, our view would be that an Islamic
society should be run by Islam, right, as
much as possible.
And the
upsetting thing about the LGBTQ plus ideology
is that it's actually forcing itself. Right?
Like, for example, if you look at UK
schools,
there was a liberal newspaper
that basically said that the LGBT plus ideology
was being taught in schools, and all of
a sudden, you had an explosion
of non binary,
and,
a queer or or or or trans children.
Yeah? And even in certain cases in America
and even in the UK
that you have, for example, this idea of
gender affirming care, but people,
they they these children are not allowed to
vote. They can't get married. They can't make
financial decisions,
and yet they allowed puberty blockers, and some
of them,
have removed breast tissue.
And some of them actually have created a
phallus, and I'm sorry to say this, but
in many cases, it's done through the through
the *.
And it doesn't work, and it smells, and
these people are depressed,
and they wanna commit suicide.
And a lot of them started at a
young age before they can make even rational
decisions like marriage, finance, and and and and
voting.
And that's why we that's why we have
to make a distinction in some cases between
the ideology and the individual because some people
actually go through
what some people say same * attraction. Yeah?
And we have to make the distinction
that, you know you know, this is a
this is AAA
thing that can happen to someone, and there's
an Islamic way of dealing with it. In
actual fact, I had a particular case when
I was speaking to 1 brother. You know,
we believe that if someone comes to you
and and they say, look, you know, I
have certain feelings. I need help. We say,
finally, if if you're willing to have a
conversation as an adult, I can help you
through And this brother end up getting married.
He's got children. He's really happy.
He he he understood that this same *
attraction was actually,
actually was, in particular constructed through certain, problems
that he had with his with his father
in particular, and so on and so forth.
Now a lot of people have different perspectives.
So
sometimes we're fed the idea that we have
this particular problem that you have to identify
as if it becomes part of your identity.
But the issue is when a Muslim comes
or any community comes and they have, a
certain feelings, you know,
Islam is not there to basically say, oh,
you know,
you're an immoral person because you have a
feeling or you have an attraction.
Islam basically says, well, it's about
manifesting that particular action. Yeah.
Especially in the context of,
Islamic society is same * *. Yeah. I
don't even wanna call it homosexuality. It's a
same * *. That's that's what's haram. Right?
The same * *. Right? In terms of,
you know, the public act.
But but anyway, the point I'm trying to
say is,
look, obviously, in Islamic society, we we it
has its own social psychological goals. It has
its own,
cohesive values wants to propagate.
It has its own hierarchies and structures that
would try and facilitate
an optimal society
for the collective and the individuals.
So when you have that, you're very unlikely
to have these movements and these ideologies. Right?
And that's why when you see the presentation
I delivered today, actually, it's come from certain
thinkers and it's been applied in a way
that's absolutely absurd. Because in my view, in
my personal view,
this is not to do with truth for
them. They don't care about truth. They don't
care about people's well-being. And you know that
because they've they've called the mutilation gender affirming
care. Right? They don't care about even the
idea of consent. Right? Because these children are
children yet, you know, they could decide whether
they should remove breast tissue or have puberty
blockers. They can't even vote. This is
oppression. What they want bro, they have deified
freedom.
They want to be absolutely free. That's what
it is.
But absolute freedom
is only an aspect of Allah's divinity.
Allah is Al Ghani, Allah is absolutely rich,
free. Allah is As Samad, the independent,
everything is dependent on him.
So it's almost like an internal shirk, honestly.
They are chasing this notion of absolute freedom.
Like the thinker, Martin Ling's actually mentioned this.
He said they are chasing they're chasing this,
you know, false notion of absolute freedom, but
in reality, it's coming from the nafs and
the ego and the and blame where they
desires.
I really believe it's an ideology
of desires, ideology
of wanting to be like God in my
view, because they want to basically be absolutely
free, but you're limited. You're human.
Only other is absolutely free.
So you're saying. Yeah. Yep. So you Sorry
sorry if I didn't answer the question because
I'm trying to think about it. But No.
No. No. You answered it,
more broadly than I expected because my question
was,
it's not I'm not afraid about the spread
of homosexuality
because it's a sin and it has been
spread, like, from the beginning, from a long
time ago.
It's the mechanism that led to the normalization
of homosexuality within the Islamic society that I'm
afraid of.
The mechanism that allowed this normalization within the
the the west,
but,
I think you answered it,
by saying that
the Islamic values in Islamic society would put
a safeguard,
from this ideology. Yes.
Islamic education, Islamic values, the Islamic social model,
the the the cohesive values that propagating society,
the understanding of identity as well, because this
is very important, because a lot of people
don't know who they are. Right? But Islam
has a very unique understanding of what is
your identity, what is your role, what is
your purpose. These are all very powerful things.
And, obviously, we don't really have the ideal
structure,
in today's world. But this is this is
what we want because we believe it's good
for the individual, and it's good for society.
And don't forget, you have to understand that
this
this,
LGBTQ plus ideology is used as a weapon
to liberalize nations and to secularize nations, and
it comes with money. So you have to
understand that as well. Like, many Muslim countries,
they many leaders have their high hands tied
behind the back, or 1 hand is tied
or 1 hand is allowed to to to
to do what it wants. You know, today's
politics is very murky. I don't know the
chess playing game. This is why I don't
really mention leaders by name. I I because
I don't I you know, we're we're finding
it difficult
to to deal with a household. Imagine a
state.
I live in Saudi Arabia, so I wouldn't
name anyone. No. No. No. But I I
don't think we should. Yes. We could hold
people to account. We could hold policies to
account for sure. But to mention names in
a derogatory way, I think it's not other
because, Yani, bro,
are you married?
No. Do you have a family? Okay. My
love got you a pious wife, Insha'Allah. So
I'm married, have a family. And, yeah, we're
struggling to, you know,
maintain that. You know? No one's saying they're
gonna be the perfect dad or husband. Now
imagine now trying to do that on a
state level. I'm gonna have some humility, man.
So I know there's a lot of things
going on, the the the harms and the
benefits. We don't know if they don't do
this, something worse can happen for sure.
But,
what I wanted to say in that was
it's being used as a weapon. So the
thing, if you want this money, if you
want this
aid, or if you want this contract, then
we have to liberalize you or you have
to basically
adopt, you know, this conception of reality, this
conception of society.
But yeah. So it is it is it
is quite dangerous. But look, we we need
to be more on the offensive and talk
about things like this. I framed it in
a very nice way in the beginning. You
have to be just and kind to people,
use hikmah, but expose the assumptions what they
are. And then get them to a position
where they they cannot shove this down our
throats. And also, we should also come together
as Muslims and as not only just Muslims,
but human beings. Because the majority of humanity
disagree with this. This is actually a minority
ideology. If you look at the whole of
the world, they're on their own.
They're on their own. They're they're they're they
are a minority, but they have the loudest
voice. They have the money, and they have
the power. That's why it's being propagated.
What we need to do, we need to
come together with like minded human beings and
actually fight back ideologically as well.
Exactly. And and I don't think it's gonna
last. It's so against the fitra of the
human being. Like, I just cannot see it
happening. Yeah. There are so many horrific cases.
And we had, you know, a lot of
the American thinkers or the right wing activists
or center right activists. They've done videos and
documentaries, and they've actually exposed,
the ideology for what it is. But, anyway
My fear stems stems I don't know if
I I don't wanna monopolize. So No. Not
at all. My my fear stems from the
hadith that says that, I fear from my
community
that 1 day, homosexuality will be legalized, will
be halal.
So
it's the the HADI state fear. So it
doesn't say that it will be allowed. So
I don't know if Yeah. I'm not I'm
not aware of that hadith. I'll have to,
look at it. But No. No. No. You
know, given that, obviously, we should all have
that fear that we don't want, you know,
our societies to basically disobey Allah.
Because disobedience of Allah is bad for the
individual and society. Obeying Allah is good for
the individual and society. It optimizes us. We'll
have great well-being in this life and the
hereafter. We believe this. We'll have a good
life in this life and in the achir.
So yeah. So
I think also we has have to also
understand that on an in we should take
it from an individual case by case basis
as well because some people who have these
affinities, for example, or these feelings, a lot
of them from my experience as well have
come from bad parenting.
They've got very bad kind of, relationships with
their father, for instance. They've had trauma.
So, you know, on a personal 1 to
1 basis, we have to be compassionate and
actually help them through that journey. And it
does work. IIII
me and others, we've had experiences where people
have actually, you
know, found the right way, if you like,
and you just have to unpack all of
those issues.
And that's why we have to be sensitive
to that as well because sometimes we, like,
you know,
we could over we can make something,
too political
when it comes to the individual.
And this is this is something that we
shouldn't do because every because the sunnah of
giving dua, the sunnah of relating people to
people individually
is to actually individualize them, understand the individual
context, the nuances,
your background, who are you, this, that, and
the other. And that's why Islam is very
rich psychologically from that perspective. So but anyway,
bro, look, this is why we need more
things like this to create awareness because a
lot of the people, especially Muslim thinkers
or activists or students, they're not empowered.
They get consumed, and there's this, LGBTQ
ideological
hegemonic force, you know, making you feel really
bad that you're not accepting their world view.
And we should empower people to be compassionate
and wise, but assertive. Say, no. We disagree
with you, and this is why. You have
these assumptions. We have our world view. Let's
talk about tawhid to bring the discussion back
to Dua as well.
So and, you know, I'm not saying this
is the only way to do it. You
can't intellectualize everything because this is an
ideological war, if you like. There's other things
that need to be involved in the state
level, political level, on a financial level, on
a collective level, I get it. But from
the perspective and objective of Sapiens, we're here
to basically unpack that, you know,
it's it's not Islamic, the LGBTQ plus ideology
in any shape or form as we discussed.
LGBTQ plus ideology has 5 false assumptions at
least. Some of them contradict each other. They're
incoherent and not absolute. Therefore, they shouldn't shove
it down our throats. We have more of
a current position
based upon just what those positions are and
that they come from a foundation that is
true. And we can show the absurdity of
their positions as well, that they're basically,
anti human in my view. And they're oppressive
and they're very dangerous. And we've seen we've
heard some horror stories
from human beings, you know, who we should
be taking care of and helping,
and we should be commit to their well-being
and their guidance and their goodness. But these
people have basically escaped us, and they've basically
been mutilated, and a lot of them regret
it. A lot of them And a lot
of a lot of those proponent are victim
themselves of this Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Aware of this. So that's why we shouldn't
be aggressive when we address this ideology because
these people are
you you come like a doctor. You you
prescribe
a medicine to someone that wants to doesn't
want to be healed. So Yeah. I mean,
on an individual level, yeah, we should be
we we shouldn't be aggressive. But sometimes, on
ideological level, we have to be assertive.
Yeah. Because they're assertive to us. They say,
you're big, get you this. They say, hold
on a second. You know, we're gonna have
some self respect here. Do you want an
intellectual discussion or no? If you want 1,
we'll have a discussion.
Because sometimes, you know, there's a lot of
name calling and abuse. Sometimes we have to
stand our ground. Yeah. And we have to
be I call it being positively assertive.
But anyway, my brother, the time is up
now. May I bless you, bro. And I
really hope,
I really hope Turkiya wins tomorrow. I don't
know if you like football or football. I
will watch it. I will watch it. Yeah.
Unless, I will make dua that take you
in 02, 000 and 24.